Chairman Kaga wrote:If you are so concerned with the studios aking money why are you stealing from them?

The writers/directors/actors pay isn't extra money. All three of these unions took pay cuts in the past to work in a system where in pay was deferred until later and incentive based. If you work on a movie that does well the larger your residuals thus the incentive to produce more popular (and profitable for the studios) work.

You miss the point. Because Epic Movie sucks and makes money...he has the right to steal movies he enjoys. Why should he pay for something he enjoys when other movies suck? Like, duh. It makes perfect sense.

You're right! It's so simple now. I can't see the forest for the trees.

Chairman Kaga wrote:If you are so concerned with the studios making money why are you stealing from them?

The writers/directors/actors pay isn't extra money. All three of these unions took pay cuts in the past to work in a system where in pay was deferred until later and incentive based. If you work on a movie that does well the larger your residuals thus the incentive to produce more popular (and profitable for the studios) work.

It's also good to find out that you aren't only a thief but a skinflint to boot.

Bravo to Theta.

I have been enlightend...

Knowing this is how hollywood works really makes me not want to work for it.

Knowing this, fuck it, I might just never pay for a movie any more untill PROPER change is made. I'll live vicariously through the bootlegs that come into my possesion (Which for the record, I NEVER download any movies of the net myself, Never have and never will.) Wait for DVD or watch the burned copies my friend makes off of his NETFLIX que. In the end I might end up spending no more than maybe $150 a year on films..

I'll wait and watch the film industry die like the recording industry is slowly doing right now.

And on a side note, I found this quote from Robert Rodriguez on IMDB

Left the Writers' Guild of America (WGA) in late 2001, citing the organization had "too many rules and just take your money."

Most writers, directors, and actors live from project to project. They aren't raking in millions. Sometimes weeks, if not months, could pass between projects. How are actors supposed to be able to audition, writers to work on their spec script, or directors pitch their ideas if they are constantly waiting tables? That's one of the ideas behind the residuals: it's a bit of a safety net between jobs. The other idea is that when people pour their creative soul into a project and a studio rakes in the cash hand over fist, it stands to reason the people who actually created the project should share in the success. The studio system is dead for a reason and it's mainly because you can't trust a company to do the right thing by its employees.

RogueScribner wrote:Most writers, directors, and actors live from project to project. They aren't raking in millions. Sometimes weeks, if not months, could pass between projects. How are actors supposed to be able to audition, writers to work on their spec script, or directors pitch their ideas if they are constantly waiting tables?

That's easy! They live off the tips that they're not getting from robo.

bastard_robo wrote:Knowing this is how hollywood works really makes me not want to work for it.

Well, good news, keep goin' like you're goin' and there won't be a Hollywood. Of course, you get what you pay for.[/quote]

I'll wait and watch the film industry die like the recording industry is slowly doing right now.

Not going to happen. The music industry is so warped, corrupt and static that destruction was inevitable. Hollywood will change but that change is going to be a lot more gradual and vastly different from what's going to happen to the music industry. Which is, of course, why we had this strike in the first place!

And on a side note, I found this quote from Robert Rodriguez on IMDB

Left the Writers' Guild of America (WGA) in late 2001, citing the organization had "too many rules and just take your money."

Yeah, notice the guy who can afford not work in Hollywood but instead as an independent operator bitches about the unions. I bet he loved them back before he set himself up with his own studio.

This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.

Glad that this could be coming to an end tomorrow, but yah, that 17-day grace period is bogus. Well, I love Lost, so I'll do my part and concoct a way to stream the episodes over and over every 17 days

bastard_robo wrote:Knowing this is how hollywood works really makes me not want to work for it.

Well, good news, keep goin' like you're goin' and there won't be a Hollywood. Of course, you get what you pay for.

I'll wait and watch the film industry die like the recording industry is slowly doing right now.

Not going to happen. The music industry is so warped, corrupt and static that destruction was inevitable. Hollywood will change but that change is going to be a lot more gradual and vastly different from what's going to happen to the music industry. Which is, of course, why we had this strike in the first place!

And on a side note, I found this quote from Robert Rodriguez on IMDB

Left the Writers' Guild of America (WGA) in late 2001, citing the organization had "too many rules and just take your money."

Yeah, notice the guy who can afford not work in Hollywood but instead as an independent operator bitches about the unions. I bet he loved them back before he set himself up with his own studio.[/quote]

When you can make movies that make money on no budget, and know what the fuck your doing, Rodriguez clearly shows that you really dont need UNIONS or the shit from the stuido system. Unfortunatly, not a lot of people in movie making are that smart.

RogueScribner wrote:Most writers, directors, and actors live from project to project. They aren't raking in millions. Sometimes weeks, if not months, could pass between projects. How are actors supposed to be able to audition, writers to work on their spec script, or directors pitch their ideas if they are constantly waiting tables? That's one of the ideas behind the residuals: it's a bit of a safety net between jobs. The other idea is that when people pour their creative soul into a project and a studio rakes in the cash hand over fist, it stands to reason the people who actually created the project should share in the success. The studio system is dead for a reason and it's mainly because you can't trust a company to do the right thing by its employees.

Nor do these people NEED millions to live off of...

We all know that unless the budget is low, or the creative team is self producing the movie, everyone involved is still working for a boss, the producers.

My dad work construction for 22 years and managed to still paint his art every night. He sold dozens of works that he poured his creative soul into, and several of those paintings were then resold to other people. But he got what he asked for when he sold his art and said good bye to it as it was no longer physically his. But he still did what he loved to do and made a few bucks at it while maintaing a job.

So when one POURS their creativity into a screen play, then sells said screenplay for money, its no longer theirs. Yeah, they wrote it, but they then sold it away for a price and now the intity that paid their money for said screenplay now own it and may do what every they want with it. This is basic economics...

Look at what the basic pay is for an INDY script

:The currentapplicable Guild minimum for an original screenplay purchase is $37,962:

Thats almost a years pay for most people, easily liveable even in Los Angles standards.

But the writer dosnt get all of that as they will have to pay their Union dues ontop of that.

Its all middle man crap.

And this whole strike isnt just over residuals either, as proven early on in this bs, the WGA is trying to every writer under their banner.

As part of this campaign September 20, 2006, WGAw held a Los Angeles, California unity rally in support of the America's Next Top Model writers strike. President Patric Verrone said: "Every piece of media with a moving image on a screen or a recorded voice must have a writer, and every writer must have a WGA contract

Thats just a fucking power trip bull shit right there.

Sound like the WGA heads would like every single writer under their thumb and control.

Last edited by bastard_robo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So Robert doesn't use any UNIONS, huh? Tell that to those big burly motherfuckers that drive the trucks and haul the equipment on his sets. Oh, and the stunt people, too. Did I mention the craft unions yet? What about all the SAG actors he employs? The production engineers? Make-up artists? Hair stylists? Costume designers? Electricians? Set designers? The on-studio schoolteachers that he has probably hired to teach his own damn kids?

This "discussion" is barely worth continuing mainly because your team lost, (ha ha!) but seriously, dude - if you're going to insist to press on, don't make shit up.

Zarles wrote:So Robert doesn't use any UNIONS, huh? Tell that to those big burly motherfuckers that drive the trucks and haul the equipment on his sets. Oh, and the stunt people, too. Did I mention the craft unions yet? What about all the SAG actors he employs? The production engineers? Make-up artists? Hair stylists? Costume designers? Electricians? Set designers? The on-studio schoolteachers that he has probably hired to teach his own damn kids?

This "discussion" is barely worth continuing mainly because your team lost, (ha ha!) but seriously, dude - if you're going to insist to press on, don't make shit up.

Thats because these union fuck heads made sure that no one can independantly be contracted to do any of the work. When your FORCED to use these groups, you have no other option but to do so.

SAG after one small acting gig, You HAVE to join if you want to contiue to act. Theres no "SECOND OPTION" no choice to go anywere else if one wants to continue in their "CRAFT" You join, get paid your minimum due starting out, then sag takes their cut of your hard earned cash for being in their fancy club.

Watch Full Tilt Boogie and see the problems that he had to deal with on From Dusk Till Dawn.

I'll keep saying to my dying days that the world would be better off with out lawyers and unions.

Norman Rae wrote:I'll keep saying to my dying days that the world would be better off with out lawyers and unions.

Yeah, we wouldn't want people getting professional representation when it comes to handling their legal matters. I think we all know how well it works out when individuals choose to represent themselves, right? Right.

In conclusion,

Last edited by Zarles on Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Zarles wrote:So Robert doesn't use any UNIONS, huh? Tell that to those big burly motherfuckers that drive the trucks and haul the equipment on his sets. Oh, and the stunt people, too. Did I mention the craft unions yet? What about all the SAG actors he employs? The production engineers? Make-up artists? Hair stylists? Costume designers? Electricians? Set designers? The on-studio schoolteachers that he has probably hired to teach his own damn kids?

This "discussion" is barely worth continuing mainly because your team lost, (ha ha!) but seriously, dude - if you're going to insist to press on, don't make shit up.

Thats because these union fuck heads made sure that no one can independantly be contracted to do any of the work. When your FORCED to use these groups, you have no other option but to do so.

SAG after one small acting gig, You HAVE to join if you want to contiue to act. Theres no "SECOND OPTION" no choice to go anywere else if one wants to continue in their "CRAFT" You join, get paid your minimum due starting out, then sag takes their cut of your hard earned cash for being in their fancy club.

Watch Full Tilt Boogie and see the problems that he had to deal with on From Dusk Till Dawn.

I'll keep saying to my dying days that the world would be better off with out lawyers and unions.

bastard_robo wrote:We all know that unless the budget is low, or the creative team is self producing the movie, everyone involved is still working for a boss, the producers.

My dad work construction for 22 years and managed to still paint his art every night. He sold dozens of works that he poured his creative soul into, and several of those paintings were then resold to other people. But he got what he asked for when he sold his art and said good bye to it as it was no longer physically his. But he still did what he loved to do and made a few bucks at it while maintaing a job.

So when one POURS their creativity into a screen play, then sells said screenplay for money, its no longer theirs. Yeah, they wrote it, but they then sold it away for a price and now the intity that paid their money for said screenplay now own it and may do what every they want with it. This is basic economics...

When an artist sells his paintings, does he sell the rights to those paintings as well? I mean, for the exchange of money does the artist relinquish all rights to that work? Can the buyer then go make copies of it and sell it to people for profit? Can the buyer make a sequel painting? Can the buyer make merchandise of that painting? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that selling paintings and selling screenplays are two very different animals. The studios would prefer to pay little now in case the project doesn't work out so they can minimize their losses. If the studios make money, everyone that was a creative force behind the film makes money. Studios can rake in millions, if not billions of dollars in revenue from a movie or tv show. Why shouldn't the people who made it the great piece of entertainment it is get a piece of that? If people didn't get residuals, their asking prices up front would skyrocket and many studios wouldn't want to risk losing money on riskier projects so they simply wouldn't make them. Everything we'd ever get would be vanilla sold to the masses. This current system isn't perfect, but it allows people to take chances and, I for one, believe people should share in the success of any project they had helped create. There's a difference between the guy running cable or buidling sets and the people who craft the story, design the shots, perform the roles, and edit it all together. Every project needs its creative leaders to guide the rest of the production and those leaders deserve to make good when their projects make good.

bastard_robo wrote:W e all know that unless the budget is low, or the creative team is self producing the movie, everyone involved is still working for a boss, the producers.

My dad work construction for 22 years and managed to still paint his art every night. He sold dozens of works that he poured his creative soul into, and several of those paintings were then resold to other people. But he got what he asked for when he sold his art and said good bye to it as it was no longer physically his. But he still did what he loved to do and made a few bucks at it while maintaing a job.

So when one POURS their creativity into a screen play, then sells said screenplay for money, its no longer theirs. Yeah, they wrote it, but they then sold it away for a price and now the intity that paid their money for said screenplay now own it and may do what every they want with it. This is basic economics...

When an artist sells his paintings, does he sell the rights to those paintings as well? I mean, for the exchange of money does the artist relinquish all rights to that work? Can the buyer then go make copies of it and sell it to people for profit? Can the buyer make a sequel painting? Can the buyer make merchandise of that painting? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that selling paintings and selling screenplays are two very different animals. The studios would prefer to pay little now in case the project doesn't work out so they can minimize their losses. If the studios make money, everyone that was a creative force behind the film makes money. Studios can rake in millions, if not billions of dollars in revenue from a movie or tv show. Why shouldn't the people who made it the great piece of entertainment it is get a piece of that? If people didn't get residuals, their asking prices up front would skyrocket and many studios wouldn't want to risk losing money on riskier projects so they simply wouldn't make them. Everything we'd ever get would be vanilla sold to the masses. This current system isn't perfect, but it allows people to take chances and, I for one, believe people should share in the success of any project they had helped create. There's a difference between the guy running cable or buidling sets and the people who craft the story, design the shots, perform the roles, and edit it all together. Every project needs its creative leaders to guide the rest of the production and those leaders deserve to make good when their projects make good.

bastard_robo wrote:My dad work construction for 22 years and managed to still paint his art every night. He sold dozens of works that he poured his creative soul into, and several of those paintings were then resold to other people. But he got what he asked for when he sold his art and said good bye to it as it was no longer physically his. But he still did what he loved to do and made a few bucks at it while maintaing a job.

That's got nothing to do with this situation at all. A painting is a physical piece of property that can only be sold once, no matter how much creative energy went into making it. A painting can't be downloaded by people who are too cheap or inconsiderate to pay for it. Let's look at it this way, though - by your "logic", if that painting became famous and the company that owned it decided to make postcards and t-shirts and posters and thong underwear with a likeness of that painting on them, your dad shouldn't get a cent of residuals from the merchandising rights of all that crap, right? It's a good thing construction pays so well.

bastard_robo wrote:When you can make movies that make money on no budget, and know what the fuck your doing, Rodriguez clearly shows that you really dont need UNIONS or the shit from the stuido system. Unfortunatly, not a lot of people in movie making are that smart.

Yeah, robo, if you want to work in the industry, learn a bit about how it works. Rodriguez has always been tied to a studio and frankly wouldn't have gotten as far as he has without those connections. He is STILL beholden to Dimension/Miramax. He does not self-distribute his work; he simply buys the tools to make the films so he can produce those films on a lower budget. This gives him more, but nowhere close to TOTAL, creative freedom. If you think Miramax DIDN'T have "feedback" for him, you're wrong.

As for the unions, I bet he doesn't complain when his residuals checks show up. And he wouldn't have those in the first place if it weren't for...the unions! I also bet he enjoys being able to get a full crew with experience and knowledge of their jobs with one phone call, which is really only possible with...IATSE, a union.

This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.

bastard_robo wrote:Thats because these union fuck heads made sure that no one can independantly be contracted to do any of the work. When your FORCED to use these groups, you have no other option but to do so.

Oh, I missed THIS gem. Somebody's never worked a day of physical labor in his entire life.

SAG after one small acting gig, You HAVE to join if you want to contiue to act. Theres no "SECOND OPTION" no choice to go anywere else if one wants to continue in their "CRAFT" You join, get paid your minimum due starting out, then sag takes their cut of your hard earned cash for being in their fancy club.

Good Lord, man, do you even have any idea how the union system actually WORKS or what the unions provide to their members? Obviously not, so let's go over it!

First off, if you act in a production which is produced by an SAG signatory, yes, you will have to join the Guild. Most actors actually want to JOIN the Guild in the first place. Why?

Because being a Guild member gives you recourse. Don't get paid? Call the Guild. Ordered to work a 24-hour day? Call the Guild.

The Guild finds you jobs. Yeah, it might be extra work, or "Thug #1", but that's still money in your pocket. Guild membership also means you can sign up at companies like Central Casting.

And you also get health and dental, plus a pension for when you retire. The SAG has done a lot to help actors get through rough periods and has kept them from becoming homeless or starving.

I won't pretend there aren't difficulties or concerns, but you're spinning it like they're a bunch of leeches when it's clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you really want to work in this industry, you have to understand why the process exists and for what reasons. Unions ensure workers don't get exploited, period.

This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.

And this sucks for Scrubs fans, such a weird way to end a great series. It's not what it used to be. Still, there are a few more eps to go. I hope they show the final episodes on air and don't send them straight to dvd...wtf?

And this sucks for Scrubs fans, such a weird way to end a great series. It's not what it used to be. Still, there are a few more eps to go. I hope they show the final episodes on air and don't send them straight to dvd...wtf?

I agree... here's hoping that NBC might let them make a movie or mini-series (or just let them finish off a few more episodes) so they can have a proper ending.

No, no I did. It's only purely personal selfish reasons that I would have liked it to go on just a bit longer.

Although I have to say, I think it's possible they could have gotten an even better deal if they'd fucked the Oscars. The anarchist in me would have liked to see that. All people in LA do is give each other awards anyway

bastard_robo wrote:My dad work construction for 22 years and managed to still paint his art every night. He sold dozens of works that he poured his creative soul into, and several of those paintings were then resold to other people. But he got what he asked for when he sold his art and said good bye to it as it was no longer physically his. But he still did what he loved to do and made a few bucks at it while maintaing a job.

That's got nothing to do with this situation at all. A painting is a physical piece of property that can only be sold once, no matter how much creative energy went into making it. A painting can't be downloaded by people who are too cheap or inconsiderate to pay for it. Let's look at it this way, though - by your "logic", if that painting became famous and the company that owned it decided to make postcards and t-shirts and posters and thong underwear with a likeness of that painting on them, your dad shouldn't get a cent of residuals from the merchandising rights of all that crap, right? It's a good thing construction pays so well.

The argument is the same for a screenplay. You cant sell a story thats in your head, it has to be written down on something, thus making it a physical piece of creative work! Written on Microsoft Word or Pen and Paper

And yes, a painting can be downloaded, I have many works of art by many comic artist. One of them was a Godzilla ink that Art Adams did. He sold it and the owner decided to post it on the net for everyone to see.

Now its all over the net (though it begs another argument over some one working on a property owned by someone else.)

And yes... Construction dose pay well, it supported my family for 16 years (and ultimatly led to the divorce of my parents)

RogueScribner wrote:When an artist sells his paintings, does he sell the rights to those paintings as well? I mean, for the exchange of money does the artist relinquish all rights to that work? Can the buyer then go make copies of it and sell it to people for profit? Can the buyer make a sequel painting? Can the buyer make merchandise of that painting? I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that selling paintings and selling screenplays are two very different animals. The studios would prefer to pay little now in case the project doesn't work out so they can minimize their losses. If the studios make money, everyone that was a creative force behind the film makes money. Studios can rake in millions, if not billions of dollars in revenue from a movie or tv show. Why shouldn't the people who made it the great piece of entertainment it is get a piece of that? If people didn't get residuals, their asking prices up front would skyrocket and many studios wouldn't want to risk losing money on riskier projects so they simply wouldn't make them. Everything we'd ever get would be vanilla sold to the masses. This current system isn't perfect, but it allows people to take chances and, I for one, believe people should share in the success of any project they had helped create. There's a difference between the guy running cable or buidling sets and the people who craft the story, design the shots, perform the roles, and edit it all together. Every project needs its creative leaders to guide the rest of the production and those leaders deserve to make good when their projects make good.